Guatemala vs Lithuania: Intensive Margin, Theil index
Guatemala
2.15
in 2014
Lithuania
2.16
in 2014
Guatemala rank
152nd
Lithuania rank
151st
Intensive Margin, Theil index over time
- Guatemala
- Lithuania
How they compare
Lithuania currently reports 2.16 against 2.15 in Guatemala, a difference of 0.01.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 53 shared years of data; in 1962 it was Guatemala ahead.
Guatemala ranks 152nd and Lithuania ranks 151st of 189 countries.
Across the 6 decades both report, Guatemala averaged higher in 5 and Lithuania in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guatemala | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 2.65 | 0 | 2.65 | Guatemala |
| 1970s | 2.38 | 0 | 2.38 | Guatemala |
| 1980s | 2.23 | 0 | 2.23 | Guatemala |
| 1990s | 2.27 | 1.61 | 0.6577 | Guatemala |
| 2000s | 2.46 | 1.85 | 0.6028 | Guatemala |
| 2010s | 2.15 | 2.53 | 0.3807 | Lithuania |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher intensive margin, theil index, Guatemala or Lithuania?
- Lithuania, at 2.16 against 2.15 in Guatemala as of 2014.
- What is the difference in intensive margin, theil index between Guatemala and Lithuania?
- 0.01, with Lithuania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Lithuania?
- 53 years are reported by both, from 1962 to 2014.
- How do Guatemala and Lithuania rank globally for intensive margin, theil index?
- Guatemala ranks 152nd and Lithuania ranks 151st of 189 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Monetary Fund, published as Intensive Margin, Theil index. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Covers 200 countries with data from 1962 to 2014. It has three main indicators: the Export Diversification Index, which can be disaggregated into sub-indices covering the Extensive Margin and the Intensive Margin. As these are Theil indices, higher values for all three correspond to lower export diversification.